Kant’s philosophy of science takes on sharp contour in terms of his interaction with the practicing life scientists of his day, particularly Johann Blumenbach and the latter’s student, Christoph Girtanner, who in 1796 attempted to synthesize the ideas of Kant and Blumenbach. Indeed, Kant’s engagement with the life sciences played a far more substantial role in his transcendental philosophy than has been recognized hitherto. The theory of epigenesis, especially in light of Kant’s famous analogy in the first (...) Critique, posed crucial questions regarding the ‘looseness of fit’ between the constitutive and the regulative in Kant’s theory of empirical law. A detailed examination of Kant’s struggle with epigenesis between 1784 and 1790 demonstrates his grave reservations about its hylozoist implications, leading to his even stronger insistence on the discrimination of constitutive from regulative uses of reason. The continuing relevance of these issues for Kant’s philosophy of science is clear from the work of Buchdahl and its contemporary reception. (shrink)

This book offers an integrated historical and philosophical examination of the origin of genetics. The author contends that an integrated HPS analysis helps us to have a better understanding of the history of genetics, and sheds light on some general issues in the philosophy of science. This book consists of three parts. It begins with historical problems, revisiting the significance of the work of Mendel, de Vries, and Weldon. Then it turns to integrated HPS problems, developing an exemplar-based (...) analysis of the development and the progress in early genetics. Finally, it discusses philosophical problems: conceptual change, evidence, and theory choice. Part I lays out a new historiography, serving as a basis for the discussions in part II and part III. Part II introduces a new integrated HPS method to analyse and interpret the historiography in Part I and to re-examine the philosophical issues in Part III. Part III develops new philosophical accounts which will in turn make a better sense of the history of scientific practice more generally. This book provides a practical defence of integrated HPS: the best way to defend integrated HPS is to do it. (shrink)

The paper provides a systematic overview of recent debates in epistemology and philosophy of science on the nature of understanding. We explain why philosophers have turned their attention to understanding and discuss conditions for “explanatory” understanding of why something is the case and for “objectual” understanding of a whole subject matter. The most debated conditions for these types of understanding roughly resemble the three traditional conditions for knowledge: truth, justification and belief. We discuss prominent views about how to (...) construe these conditions for understanding, whether understanding indeed requires conditions of all three types and whether additional conditions are needed. (shrink)

In this book, 13 leading philosophers of science focus on the work of Professor Howard Stein, best known for his study of the intimate connection between ...

Hempel was one of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century, along with Thomas Kuhn and Sir Karl Popper. His work defined the central problems of the field and its proper methods of investigation. By presenting an analytical and historical introduction and a comprehensive bibliography together with a selection of many of Carl G. Hempel's most important studies, this volume provides an ideal opportunity for students and scholars to appreciate the enduring contributions of one of the (...) most important philosophers of science of the 20th century. (shrink)

'Relativism versus absolutism' is one of the fundamental oppositions that have dominated reflections about science for much of its history. Often these reflections have been inseparable from wider social-political concerns regarding the position of science in society. Where does this debate stand in the philosophy and sociology of science today? And how does the 'relativism question' relate to current concerns with 'post truth' politics? In Relativism in the Philosophy of Science, Martin Kusch examines some (...) of the most influential relativist proposals of the last fifty years, and the controversies they have triggered. He argues that defensible forms of relativism all deny that any sense can be made of a scientific result being absolutely true or justified, and that they all reject 'anything goes' – that is the thought that all scientific results are epistemically on a par. Kusch concludes by distinguishing between defensible forms of relativism and post-truth thinking. (shrink)

I distinguish three ways in which early modern rationalists seek to apply the principle of sufficient reason to empirical science, and critically assess some of their attempts to do so. I focus especially on how these thinkers assume substantive theories of explanation and intelligibility--which are indebted to the mechanist and experimentalist traditions--in many of their deployments of this rationalist principle. A recurring problem is that these philosophers deploy their standards of intelligibility inconsistently: some of their own favored explanations do (...) not always live up to their standards. I argue that the problem is especially acute for Leibniz and Euler, given their enthusiasm for final-causal explanations. (shrink)

This paper provides an analysis of the Preface and Chapter 1 of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It will be translated into German, and published in a volume edited by Markus Seidel.

In the first part of this paper we investigate how scientific theories can be represented by frames. Different kinds of scientific theories can be distinguished in terms of the systematic power of their frames. In the second part we outline the central questions and goals of our research project. In the third and final part of this paper we show that frame-representation is a useful tool in the comparison of the theories of phlogiston and oxygen, despite those theories being traditionally (...) conceived as incommensurable. The frame-theoretic representation reveals common attributes, values and ultimately structural correspondence relations between the two theories. In our view this outcome lends credence to a structural realist view of science. (shrink)

This Dissertation expands the work of Michael Dummett to issues in the philosophy of science. ;Chapter One relates the issue of realism to that of truth and meaning. ;Dummett's view is subject to the same attacks that doomed logical positivism. In Chapter Two I defend him against these attacks and articulate his view further. In particular, Dummett's view of sense is articulated, and the attacks of Kripke and Hempel are addressed. ;Chapter Three is devoted to applying Dummett's view (...) to Mach's criticisms of absolute space. I argue that the usual reading of Mach is incorrect, and strains the text. I then argue that Mach is best read as arguing that absolute space is a senseless concept. ;Chapter Four argues that van Fraassen's view that we may be agnostic about what a theory says about unobservable objects while believing its edicts about observable ones erases the distinction between belief and agnosticism. I also argue that empirically equivalent theories must have the same truth value. ;The fifth chapter replies to the objection that my position must collapse into something more radical, strict finitism in the case of mathematics. I reply that the objection depends on a view of counterfactuals I am not bound to adopt. ;Finally I apply the apparatus developed to the articulation of an anti-realist theme in the work of Thomas Kuhn. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Nietzsche-Studien Jahrgang: 45 Heft: 1 Seiten: 268-279.

After distinguishing "social philosophy" from "philosophy of social science" on the basis of the former's "more overtly normative" concerns and the latter's primary concern with methodological and confirmation issues in the social sciences, Rudner argues in support of the fully-formalized, axiomatic model of scientific theories and the deductive-nomological model of explanation as paradigms to guide the process of social scientific understanding; though, as Rudner willingly acknowledges, these paradigms hardly characterize the present product of the social sciences. Rudner's (...) primary motivation is the desire to leave open the ideal of the "unity of science." Thus, he argues against such "separatist" approaches as the classical, verstehen theory of Weber, against the more recent wedding of this type of position to ordinary language philosophy in, especially, the work of Winch, and, finally, in the last chapter, against positions which employ teleological and functional analyses. This last chapter fails, mainly because Rudner uses "teleological" in an indiscriminate way, which is not at all characteristic of some of the more recent defenses of teleological explanation. In addition, Rudner ignores the question of the extent to which methodological commitments may reflect underlying ontological commitments, a level of analysis and justification which cannot be bypassed in any consideration of the type of unity envisioned for science.—E. A. R. (shrink)

Examines some of the potential and some of the problems inherent in using computerized simulations in science and science studies classes by applying lessons from the epistemology of science. While computer simulations are useful pedagogical tools, they are not experiments and thus are of only limited utility as substitutes for actual laboratories. Contains 20 references. (Author/PVD).

While some philosophers of history have argued that explanations in human history are of a fundamentally different kind than explanations in the natural sciences, I shall argue that this is not the case. Human beings are part of nature, human history is part of natural history, and human historical explanation is a species of natural historical explanation. In this paper I shall use a case study from the history of the American Civil War to show the variety of close parallels (...) between natural and human historical explanation. In both instances, I shall argue that these explanations involve narrative descriptions of causal mechanisms. I shall show how adopting a mechanistic approach to explanation can provide resources to address some important aspects of human historiographic explanation, including problems concerning event individuation, historical meaning, agency, the role of laws, and the nature of contingency. (shrink)

This essay seeks to rehabilitate the distinction between theory and observation in philosophy of science. Historical background to the distinction in the early development of empiricism is highlighted for clues to its later rejection as overly simplistic, and for an indication of its useful purpose in scientific thinking. The post-positivistic objection that all observation is theory-laden is considered, and key arguments against the theory-observation distinction are evaluated and criticized as inconclusive. At most such attempts to undermine the theory-observation (...) distinction show that it may be hopeless to establish the division by treating observation as non-theoretical. As an alternative to these failed efforts, another approach is essayed, according to which theoretical terms are defined as non-observational. A defense of the theory-observation distinction along these lines is developed and illustrated with examples involving Ramsey sentence reductions of theoretical to observational terms as a way of restoring objectivity to science in light of skepticism arising from the claim that all observation is subjectively tainted by prior commitments to theoretical presuppositions. (shrink)

Philosophy of Science, understood as a special philosophical discipline, was born only at the beginning of the twentieth century as part of the effort for overcoming the “foundational crisis” that had affected especially mathematics and physics. Therefore, it was conceived as an investigation about the features and reliability of scientific knowledge and for a few decades was deeply marked by the philosophical approach of logical empiricism. This cognitive point of view persisted also when, after Kuhn’s work, the attention (...) focused on the scientific activity in order to understand scientific change and a sociological model replaced the view that empirical adequacy and logical consistency are the factors that determine the change of scientific theories. Ethical, social and political considerations regarding science ware considered inappropriate and potentially dangerous since they violate the alleged “neutrality of science” with respect to values. Nevertheless, the strict intertwining of science and technology in contemporary “technoscience” has produced a wide debate regarding the practical aspect of technoscientific activity that has the intrinsic features of a philosophical debate. Therefore, it is natural and advisable that the entire wealth of the philosophical disciplines be called to contribute to the specific complex discourse of the Philosophy of Science. (shrink)

This volume combines two of Kant's key works on the metaphysics of nature--the _Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science and Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science_--in the preeminent translations of James W. Ellington. Each work is preceded by an expert Introduction by Ellington and is followed by a German-English List of Terms and an Index.

Highlighting the work of the most prominent and influential scholars in the field, the articles reflect a diversity of philosophical opinion and demonstrate to students how each position is subject to constructive criticism and how this criticism motivates alternative positions.

This collection of ten papers celebrates the diversity and richness of post-positivist philosophy of science. The contributors believe that new perspectives can be developed and that philosophical criticism can make a useful contribution to the search for new and fruitful scientific paradigms.

本书共分九章内容：第一章论述了生命科学哲学兴起的背景，区分了生命科学哲学研究中的两种理论倾向，指出了生命科学哲学研究的主要问题，最后介绍了国内外生命科学哲学研究的进展；第二章分析了这种解释方式的合理性 及其与因果性解释方式的关系，并由此进一步讨论了生命科学的自主性问题；第三章从不同方面较详细地论述了正反两方面论证的依据，并对各种观点进行了比较，说明生物学理论缺少规律的原因；第四章讨论了还原概念和突现 概念的历史发展，分析了它们各自的认识论和本体论原因，指出了它们各自的优点和局限，最后指出了超越它们的途径；第五章着重讨论了进化论的统计特性与进化过程的决定论和非决定论问题；第六章讨论了生命难以定义的各 种原因，论述了定义生命的两种主要方法；第七章指出了人工生命提出的主要的哲学问题，从不同角度论证了强人工生命的可能性，分析了数字生命的实在论地位，揭示了人工生命所蕴含计算主义世界观；第八章分析了人类基因 组研究的价值及其所可能引起的伦理和法律问题；第九章总结了8年来关于人类克隆的主要争论和观点，并揭示了这些争论给我们的启示。.

Ernst Mayr is a well-known biologist and philosopher in the twentieth century. Being a biologist, he is an important person in constructing the synthesis theory of evolution; being a philosopher, he has advocated a new philosophy, which, he claims, synthesizes the achievement of different biologies and physics, while at the same time getting rid of the influences of the traditional philosophy of science. In this essay, I will systematically investigate the main principles and the basic scheme of (...) his new philosophy. I find that Mayr’s new ideas of philosophy of biology can be summarized as the following five statements: The physical science is not the standard paradigm of the whole science; The historical narratives are more important than the explanation of laws; The explanation and the prediction are asymmetrical in life science; Concepts are more essential than laws in biology; There is no conflict between causality and teleonomy. (shrink)